The High Court ordered Roger Michael Gardener’s surrender to England so he can face prosecution for alleged rape and indecent assault, as well as alleged offences of perverting the course of justice and conspiring to commit arson. The order followed the court’s rejection of objections based on delay and adverse publicity.
The allegations of rape and indecent assault are said to date from between 25 October 1987 and 26 October 1989. The alleged justice offences are said to have occurred in August and September 2000. The court did not decide whether any of the offences occurred; it considered whether surrender was permitted under the European Arrest Warrant Act and the relevant Framework Decision.
The warrant issued on 18 August 2006 and was endorsed for execution in Ireland by the High Court on 19 September that year. Gardener was arrested on 4 October and brought before the court the following day. His surrender application was heard on 24 January 2007.
For the respondent, Ronan Munro BL argued that the passage of time risked an unfair or delayed trial. He pointed to the lack of precise dates for the sexual offence allegations, the absence of an explanation for the delay, and the authorities’ awareness by 2001 that Gardener was in Ireland. He also argued that prejudice could be presumed even though Gardener had not identified specific harm to his defence.
Justice Michael Peart found that Gardener had provided no evidence showing a real risk that he could not receive a fair trial or that the delay had impaired a protected interest, such as his defence or freedom from oppressive pre-trial detention. The judge held that the respondent had not discharged the burden of establishing the objection. He also rejected a submission that the court should use its statutory powers to seek an explanation for the delay from England.
On publicity, Munro said newspaper coverage should be considered as part of the overall balance. The judge said the coverage was modest, dated back almost four years and was not of a kind likely to create a real risk of unfairness or a prejudiced jury.
The court was satisfied that the statutory and Framework Decision requirements were met and that none of the identified statutory grounds required refusal. It ordered surrender. The judgment does not report a trial or determination of guilt.